Search

Background: Older patients managed with intensive antidiabetic therapy are more likely to be harmed. Our study's primary endpoint was to analyze the safety and efficacy of linagliptin in combination with basal insulin versus basal-bolus insulin in patients with 75 years of age or older hospitalized in medicine and surgery departments in real-world clinical practice., Methods: We retrospectively enrolled non-critically patients ≥75 years with type 2 diabetes admitted to medicine and non-cardiac surgery departments with admission glycated hemoglobin <8%, admission blood glucose <240 mg/dL, and without at-home injectable therapies managed with our hospital's antihyperglycemic protocol (basal-bolus or linagliptin-basal regimens) between January 2016 and December 2018. To match each patient who started on the basal-bolus regimen with a patient who started on the linagliptin-basal regimen, a propensity matching analysis was used., Results: Postmatching, 198 patients were included in each group. There were no significant differences in mean daily blood glucose levels after admission (P=0.203); patients with mean blood glucose 100-140mg/dL (P=0.134), 140-180mg/dL (P=0.109), or >200mg/dL (P=0.299); and number and day of treatment failure (P=0.159 and P=0.175, respectively). The total insulin dose and the number of daily injections were significantly lower in the linagliptin-basal group (both, P<0.001). Patients on the basal-bolus insulin regimen had more total hypoglycemic events than patients on the linagliptin-basal insulin regimen (P<0.001)., Conclusions: The linagliptin-basal insulin regimen was an effective alternative with fewer hypoglycemic events and daily insulin injections than intensive basal-bolus insulin in very old patients with type 2 diabetes with mild-to-moderate hyperglycemia treated at home without injectable therapies.

Background: There is little evidence on the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in older patients with heart failure. This work analyzed the clinical efficacy and safety of empagliflozin continuation in very old patients with type 2 diabetes hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure., Methods: We conducted a real-world observational study between September 2015 and June 2021. Patients ≥80 years were grouped by antihyperglycemic regimen: (1) continuation of preadmission empagliflozin combined with basal insulin regimen and (2) conventional basal-bolus insulin regimen. A propensity score matching analysis matched patients in both groups in a 1:1 manner. The primary outcome was differences in clinical efficacy measured by the visual analogue scale dyspnea score, NT-proBNP levels, diuretic response, and cumulative urine output. Safety endpoints such as adverse events, worsening heart failure, discontinuation of empagliflozin, length of hospital stay, and in-hospital deaths were also analyzed., Results: After propensity score matching, 79 patients were included in each group. At discharge, the N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels were lower in the empagliflozin continuation group than in the insulin group (1699 ± 522 vs. 2303 ± 598 pg/ml, p = 0.021). Both the diuretic response and cumulative urine output were greater in patients treated with empagliflozin than in patients with basal-bolus insulin during the hospitalization (at discharge: -0.14 ± -0.06 vs. -0.24 ± -0.10, p = 0.044; and 16,100 ± 1510 vs. 13,900 ± 1220 ml, p = 0.037, respectively). No differences were observed in safety outcomes., Conclusions: In very old patients with type 2 diabetes hospitalized for acute heart failure, continuing preadmission empagliflozin reduced NT-proBNP levels and increased diuretic response and urine output compared to a basal-bolus insulin regimen. The empagliflozin regimen also showed a good safety profile., (© 2021 The American Geriatrics Society.)

Introduction: The use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in hospitalized patients is an area of active research. We aimed to compare the efficacy and the safety of the basal-bolus insulin regimen versus linagliptin-basal insulin in non-critically ill non-cardiac surgery patients in a real-world setting. Methods: We enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes hospitalized in non-cardiac surgery departments with admission glycated haemoglobin level < 8%, admission blood glucose concentration < 240 mg/dL, and no at-home injectable treatments who were treated with basal-bolus ( n  = 347) or linagliptin-basal ( n  = 190) regimens between January 2016 and December 2017. To match patients on the two regimens, a propensity matching analysis was performed. Results: After matching, 120 patients were included in each group. No differences were noted in mean blood glucose concentration after admission ( p  = .162), number of patients with a mean blood glucose 100-140 mg/dL ( p  = .163) and > 200 mg/dL ( p  = .199), and treatment failures ( p  = .395). Total daily insulin and number of daily insulin injections were lower in the linagliptin-basal group (both p  < .001). Patients on linagliptin-basal insulin had fewer hypoglycaemic events (blood glucose < 70 mg/dL) ( p  < .001). Conclusion: For type 2 diabetes surgery patients with mild to moderate hyperglycaemia without pre-hospitalization injectable therapies, linagliptin-basal insulin was an effective, safe alternative with fewer hypoglycaemic events in real-world practice. Key messages Treatment with basal-bolus insulin regimens is the standard of care for non-critically ill hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes. A differentiated treatment protocol that takes into account glycaemic control and clinical factors should be implemented in the hospital setting. Linagliptin-basal insulin is an effective, safe alternative with fewer hypoglycaemic events during the hospitalization of non-critically ill non-cardiac surgery patients with T2D in real-world practice.